Rudd v. State
Decision Date | 03 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 60951,60951,3 |
Citation | 616 S.W.2d 623 |
Parties | Roland RUDD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wynn G. Stanton, Dallas, court appointed on appeal only, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. & Stanley Keeton, Dan Clark & Todd Meier, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before ODOM, DAVIS and McCORMICK, JJ.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed at twenty years.
In his first ground of error appellant complains of the lack of counsel at a pre-trial line-up and admission of the in-court identification. Because charges had not been brought against appellant at the time of the line-up, there was no right to counsel. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Turner v. State, 614 S.W.2d 144 (4/15/81). Also the complainant had a good view of the robbery in a well-lighted room for about a half hour, and the in-court identification was clearly based on the complainant's observations at the time of the offense, not at the line-up. The first ground of error is overruled.
The second ground of error argues the indictment was fundamentally defective for failure to allege the elements of theft. Such allegations are not required in an indictment for aggravated robbery. See Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.); Davis v. State, 532 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Cr.App.); McWherter v. State, 607 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Cr.App.).
Appellant next asserts the trial court commented on the weight of the evidence. No objection was made so nothing is presented for review. Downey v. State, 505 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.).
The last ground of error complains of two instances of jury argument. In the first instance the objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the argument. This removed any harm that may have been created. Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.). In the second instance objection to the following argument was overruled:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prible v. Lumpkin
...no right to hybrid representation" (citing Scheanette v. State , 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) )); Rudd v. State , 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (finding pro se briefs "present[ed] nothing for review" where appellant was "represented by counsel who filed a brie......
-
Johnson v. State
...to counsel. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). See also United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.1978). However, a patient trial judge may allow both counsel and th......
-
Richardson v. State, 68934
...we have in the interest of justice examined same and find no error that should be considered in the interest of justice. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The judgment of the trial court is WHITE, J., not participating. CLINTON, Judge, dissenting. The treatment given to appel......
-
Fratta v. Davis
...hybrid representation and that any pro se brief supplementing that filed by counsel provides "nothing for review." Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).6 Texas' prohibition on hybrid representation is an adequate and independent bar to federal review. See Pippin v. Dret......